mic_none

User talk:Sangdeboeuf Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sangdeboeuf

This editor is a Labutnum of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain, Cigarette Burn, Chewed Broken Pencil, Sticky Note, Bookmark, and Note from Jimbo.

Whats in a name?[edit]

I saw that Sang de boeuf glaze had made it to the main page today as a DYK, and was admittedly somewhat confused, as I thought "Why'd they name a page after 'ol Wikipedia user Sangdeboeuf?" Regardless, made me chuckle and think of you :) I think it would be very fitting if you were to help take it to GA status... Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A goat for you![edit]

Boer Goat (8742860752).jpg

Hi! Thanks for your valuable contributions so far. Would you mind commenting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Base58? Everyone would appreciate it.

Ysangkok (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

Thanks, but I haven't contributed to that article at all. My last edit to cryptocurrency-related articles was over nine months ago. Please take a minute to review Wikpedia's policy on canvassing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, I have received the policy as you requested, and I cannot fathom how you could think I am in violation of said policy. The comments are neutrally formulated (not coercing you into taking any particular stance), and I write you because you have previously commented on these matters, which is an expression of interest. See User_talk:Guy_Macon. --Ysangkok (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i√ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4053:798:46A2:2F6E:68FE:422D:97EE (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svgThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dispute resoultion[edit]

Hello, I am here to inform there is currently a resolution dispute as to the conflict on Anarchist Symbolism, located here: https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/starter/google/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. Thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not edit war[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Anarchist symbolism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. You appear to justify this by simply wanting to have the article how you want it to be despite there currently being a edit resolution of discussion. You continue to revert the page. Please self revert, thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 08:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It takes two to edit-war. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alert[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svgThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Crossroads -talk- 22:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trans title trouble[edit]

Regarding the title for the Transgender article, I think that's a case where the current title isn't ideal but, then, neither are any of the alternatives. Transgenderism? Well, that word's unfortunately become associated with TERF activists and the like (although Julia Serano once wrote a lovely and thoughtful essay in defense of the word, and other "problematic" terms.) Transgender people? Transgender person? Trans person? Not terrible, but less concise, and I think less natural (a "natural" title being one, per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles). WanderingWanda (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, but what about the title I proposed, Transgender identity? On Google Scholar, it returns ~14K hits, which is favorable compared to the historic, if outdated, transgenderism (~17K hits). Perhaps not too natural, but I think that's what redirects are for. But I'm not too worried about the Transgender article at the moment, partly because, yes, I recognize I'd be opening a semantic can of worms. I'm somewhat surprised at the resistance to Transsexuality instead of Transsexual (although not too surprised); that one seems much more straightforward. Maybe some people are confusing it with Transsexualism? Depending on how the RM goes, I may wait a few months and try again. (And thanks for pointing out that WP:TITLE does in fact suggest using other encyclopedias as a guide. I thought I'd seen that somewhere, but couldn't put my finger on it.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess in the end I wouldn't have very strong objections to either Transgender identity or Transgender people. Of the two I might lean towards the latter. The article leads with "transgender people" already, after all, and it looks like that term gets more hits on Google Scholar.
As for Transsexual/Transexuality, I may have an alternate proposal...but will have to mull it over some more. Stay tuned. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure thing. Another complication is the practice of using transgender as a noun for the broader phenomenon of transgenderism/transgender identity itself. (trans-gender, a specific type of gender?) Examples here, here, here, and here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bullet[edit]

You're simply technically incorrect about that. The intervening block element of the collapse table ends the list above it. Which you would know if you actually looked at the render output and the HTML element order, or even understood what you were talking about. The ferocity with which you are bludgeoning and OWN-acting in talk pages on topics you get overheated about is rising to pretty disruptive levels.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not an HTML expert, sure, but you seem to be saying that the {{collapse}} template creates a new end to the list, where the list should actually end with the next bulleted comment in the thread. Instead that comment became the start of a new list, which in my experience changes how the list is rendered visually. You can see this in the before-and-after of this edit. I even previewed a test edit where I moved the whole collapsed portion to the end of the thread, and the stray bullet disappeared. I am not speaking from utter ignorance here. Try it yourself if you don't believe me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC) (edited 03:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC))Reply[reply]
See the example lists below for an illustration. The first two are formatted identically except for the addition of the {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} templates. Note how adding the templates causes the stray bullet(s) to appear, and moving the collapsed portion to the end makes it disappear again. You really don't need to be a tech genius to figure this stuff out. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, once you realized that your "fix" was not accepted, you could have left it alone. Instead you doubled down, insisting that your "repair" was justified despite breaking WP:LISTGAP. Overheated indeed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One final point: the implication that formatting talk pages should be left to those who can fluently parse render output and the HTML element order is simply elitist and goes against the principle that anyone can edit Wikipedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • List element 1
    List element 2
    List element 2.5
    List element 3

  • List element 1
    List element 2
List element 2.5
  • List element 2.5
  • List element 3


  • List element 1
    List element 2
    List element 3
List element 2.5
  • List element 2.5

Buff coat[edit]

While the aurochs could be the origin of the term 'buff' it can hardly have been used to make 'buff coats' in the period 1620-1650, if the last known specimen died in 1627. Also buff coats were still in use in the 1680s, there is documentary evidence for this. I think your source may be a little unreliable. Urselius (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, the source just says "European buffalo (or wild ox) hide". The only "wild ox" native to Europe with a Wikipedia article is the Aurochs. We know hunting was partially to blame for their extinction, so it's not inconceivable that the use of hides had something to do with it. But I agree the link could be misleading. And being used from 1620–1650 doesn't rule out later use ;-) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Buffalo' is a very imprecise term in English, really it just means 'a large bovine creature'. I have found another very detailed reference and it also says "European buffalo" without defining the term, but seeing that the Aurochs died out in Britain, probably, in the Iron Age and the last known specimen in Eastern Europe died in 1627, the aurochs is very unlikely to have been the "European buffalo". My new source says that the origin of buffalo hides was Germany in the Early 17th century, which makes the beast in question far more likely to have been the wisent, which still survives. Urselius (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for your efforts[edit]

Working Man's Barnstar Hires.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Thank you for your continued service adding to Wikipedia throughout 2020. - Cdjp1 (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Merry Merry![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Sangdeboeuf, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,

★Trekker (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Nick Cannon[edit]

Hello. I did some digging and I found this old CfD: [1]. It basically says we shouldn't add value-laden categories (i.e, bias categories) to articles on individuals or organizations. It's a shame this hasn't been enforced enough. My apologies-- Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. I'll keep it in mind for future discussions. As a side note, please remember to avoid leaving blank lines between indented talk page comments, since it makes things difficult for screen-reader users. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry about that! For some reason, it makes it a lot easier to follow the conversation on my computer screen when I add a blank line. And thank you very much for the barnstar! I hardly think I deserve it. You're the one who managed to keep their cool, despite my arrogance. For the record, I've removed numerous POV categories from BLPs: [2], [3], [4], [5]. However, in this instance, I thought the category was appropriate due to the multiple sources present in the article. Again, though, you were correct in your assessment. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bigoted opinion pieces in character references[edit]

Hello!

I was formally user 70.76.12.245 and just wanted to address our recent revisions. I love Wikipedia and all it has done for making information accessible on a wide scale and can tell by both your profile and lengthy tenure that you share this zest for promoting knowledge. None of my edits were meant as vandalism or had any kind of derogatory motive. I just do not understand why character reference pages cannot just be exactly that. If a user comes to a page in hopes of learning more about a character and the fictional world building therein, why is it necessary that they need to read about how “Random Bigot’s” opinion is that people should be subdivided by their race and/or gender? Why are articles promoting the notion that people can only like characters who are the same race/gender as them promoted as necessary to characters of fictional universes? I understand they have “sources” supporting these deplorable notions, but is “written somewhere on the internet” really the only hurdle that needs to be cleared? I ask in earnest because I really am dedicated to enriching the material and integrity of Wikipedia. Often times it just seems as though people are pushing their irrelevant opinions unnecessarily into articles as a plug for themselves or as if they are somehow an authority on the matter. I admit I am new, but just want to stress that my position is not one of malice or self-satisfaction and my only aim was to strengthen pages as legitimate references. If there is a better process for this can you please fill me in since I would like to continue improving this compendium for the greater good of knowledge accessibility.

Thanks, Jeyne. Jeyne Reyne (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I wrote on the user talk page for your IP, Wikipedia is not censored. If sources which are generally regarded as reliable for a given topic area comment on a subject, then that material is potentially worthy of inclusion, whether any Wikipedia user personally finds it to be "bigoted". As I recall, the sources you removed all had some degree of editorial oversight and are considered reliable for TV criticism. The opinions of the authors were all properly attributed. More to the point, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. If readers want pure character bios, there are other places on the Internet for that. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’m sorry to hear this. I’m sure the grand encyclopaedic nature of reliable sources such as “PopSugar” will continue to sow division and factionalism between human beings rather than uniting them in a never ending quest for “clicks”. I’m not sure if there’s some remuneration involved but it’s very disheartening that perpetuating these ideals is the ultimate goal here. Beware hubris.
Edit: I mean no antagonism but this is exactly what fell IMDB. There is now an entire generation of people who watch fictional stories without thinking “I can pretend that’s ME in the television doing the things!” without thinking of how their skin or genitals separate them from one another but merely appreciating the story told. This short term pandering will sink the credibility as a whole.
Jeyne Reyne (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, another prediction of Wikipedia's imminent demise. I'll add it to the list. One could make an argument that certain sites like PopSugar don't represent authoritative opinions (you could also check the Reliable sources noticeboard archives to see what other users have to say about the source's quality), but you didn't do that. You argued a priori that the contents of various sources were "subjective", "irrelevant", "perpetuating weird American prejudices", and now "bigoted", based on your personal idea of what is appropriate for "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away". That's an argument for censoring opinions you don't like, not anything to do with reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Importantly, Wikipedia articles are not just plot summaries of fictional works, but are written from a real-world perspective. So the character claimed to be from long ago and far away is actually from a show broadcast in 2019. Real-world events and perspectives since that time should absolutely be included. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent move/redirect[edit]

I would ask that you reconsider and undo your redirect... as the article topic is about an entire class of objects (multiple offices... not one singular office) and classes are an exemption to SINGULAR. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point, I hadn't considered that. If you want to undo the move, I won't object. However, does the topic represent a group or class any more than the other topics listed at Officer? Consistency would suggest using a singular title, IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it does, because the offices are not really hierarchical (they are more job titles than ranks... for example, a lodges Secretary does not “outrank” the lodges Treasurer... they are simply different offices within the lodge, with different duties).
If you could undo the redirects it would be appreciated... I would probably screw it up if I tried to do it. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As an alternative thought... this is more of a list article than an article “about” lodge officers. So, perhaps the article should be renamed List of Masonic lodge officers? Just thinking out loud. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another option: List of Masonic lodge offices - shifting the focus to the office rather than the office holder. Blueboar (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Job titles" also applies to the various sub-categories of Scientist, Engineer, Lawyer, Health professional, etc. All are under singular titles. I think the exception exists mainly for things that are normally discussed as a group or class by published sources. A formal move request is probably the next logical step. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry[edit]

But exactly what community guidelines did I violate? 2A00:23C5:F983:C200:FD77:DFFD:96B2:16AC (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assuming [6][7] are your edits: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view, for starters. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Objectivity[edit]

Just wanted to say I agree with your points on objectivity, but I'm trying to resist the urge to comment further on Talk:Gina Carano because as you can see there is an anonymous editor who does not seem to understand that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and is very determined to have the last word. I very much appreciate your effort to improve the article, and remembering that just because one thing comes after another we cannot assume that one is because of the other. (From the substance of your edits, I expect you're already familiar with post hoc ergo propter hoc.) -- 109.76.128.61 (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Please see my recent comment on the article talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Conservative fans"?[edit]

First off, I bring this up here because i don't want to repeatedly create new sections every time i bring this topic up. I probably spammed too much on the Gina Carano talk page as it is. You seem to have made a recent edit where you changed "conservatives" to "conservative fans", and this doesn't strike me as accurate. I'd be very surprised if any reliable pop culture outlets didn't cover this, seeing as it's a very well known issue within the Star Wars fandom, but these so called "conservative fans", collectively referring to themselves as "The Fandom Menace", are in reality a part of the online far-right hate group known as Comicsgate. Them, as well as high profile right and far right public figures are the ones expressing support for Gina Carano. The current wording makes it sound like there's some kind of split in the star wars fan community, when in reality it's just grifters and alt right trolls stirring the pot like they usually do. The support for Gina Carano is a direct continuation of a several year long line of online controversies which included the racially charged targeted harassment campaigns against John Boyega, Kelly Marie Tran and Krystina Arielle, the review-bombing of The Last Jedi and the recent wave of false rumors and conspiracy theories alleging some kind of "lucasfilm civil war" between John Favreau and Kathleen Kennedy Even if this isn't covered in this way in reliable sources, which i doubt, the current wording talking about "conservative fans" supporting Gina Carano is not due. If support for her has to be mentioned one way or another, talking about a simple conservative support and focusing of Ben Shapiro and Ted Cruz as opposed to these supposed "conservative fans" is much more accurate and in line with facts. Just my two cents. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was the one who added "conservatives", before changing it to "conservative fans" in line with the Vanity Fair article. I'm willing to believe all of what you say is true; in fact I'd expect just such a thing given what happened during #Gamergate. Unfortunately, we're constrained by what sources publish; it would be helpful if you had a source to back up your suspicions, such as one directly mentioning Carano in connection with the "fan[dum] menace" ;-) On the bright side, journalists eventually revealed #Gamergate to be a sham, so maybe the same thing will happen here in time. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately the most damning evidence I can provide doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Namely the fact that Gina Carano has been actively engaging with members of the fandom menace. The youtuber who goes by the name of Drunk3PO, effectively acts as her contact with the group. He did a three part interview with her, props himself up as "friend of Gina Carano" on Twitter and even did a fundraiser with her to raise awareness towards human trafficking and child sesual exploitation. This might sound positive at first until you remember that gamergate did charity fundraisers as a PR move before, and that the anti human trafficking and child sexual exploitation campaign they raise funds for is actually a front for Pizzagate. The problem is, all of this is original research, so it's pretty much useless. Nevertheless, I do not think one needs to break site policy to avoid legitimizing the fandom menace. Using "conservatives" instead of "conservative fans" is still technically in line with what variety say. So is neglecting to mention conservatives fans altogether and just focusing on Cruz and Shapiro. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Template:R rcat" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:R rcat. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 14#Template:R rcat until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diminutives[edit]

Please don't add diminutives to lead sections, per WP:DIMINUTIVE. This applies even to fictional characters like Cara Dune. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kailash29792: I think you are misreading the guideline. Discuss at Talk:Cara Dune#Nickname in lead. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JJNito197 (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JJNito197: your recent edit summary indicates you don't think a given claim "needs" a citation. On Wikipedia, all information must be attributable to a published source. The source must support the text directly. Citing a general dictionary definition of a completely different word is not enough, and is a form of original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: I had no intention of rolling back this edit, and was not even aware that I had done so – an apparent drawback to the ease with which that button can be clicked while scrolling one's watchlist. BD2412 T 05:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. Thanks for the note, friendly talk page watcher ;-) --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jacobin (politics)[edit]

Love your edit in Jacobin_(politics).

That reference is for a set of 4 standalone books each with their own page numbering, covers and publication info. So there are multiple page 360s. The quote used is from the 2nd book - Charles Brockden Brown's Ormond or The Secret Witness with Related Texts (book cover within the set: https://books.google.com/books?id=J6otAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA355#v=onepage&q&f=false). Sadly the books are not distinguished by volume # and lack reference to being part of a set - so how to fix this? Maybe cite Ormond and add in some fashion: "In: Charles Brockden Brown's Wieland, Ormond, Arthur Mervyn, and Edgar Huntly"? Not sure how to do this.

As you note, the sentence covers attitudes in that period. This is noted in the article's United_Kingdom section. So the sentence could be moved there, but should be rewritten. Skingski (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Skingski: Interesting. I just used the page linked in the original citation, not noticing that page numbers were repeated. Since the quote is from the editors' introduction to a chapter in the "Related Texts" section, I don't think attributing the usage to the novel itself would help. I agree with moving the sentence to the UK section. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should've looked this up before. I just found the standalone book here: https://books.google.com/books?id=UuD5Vge4mTwC&q=jacobin#v=snippet&q=jacobin&f=false
Hmmm... attribution tough since the notes are for a work of fiction. So we delete this reference? I can move the sentence and add a "citation needed" tag. Skingski (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I think the reference is good, since the "related texts" are discussed in a real-world context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Woke[edit]

Thanks for the notification of the woke article. Espngeek (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Planet Aid[edit]

Just responded to your entry on my talk page. Wanted to let you know. 50.242.216.153 (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your beliefs[edit]

Why would you claim another user advocates for white genocide, knowing it's a conspiracy theory with no grounds in reality? What were you attempting to do? 92.5.188.248 (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think I did. Cheers! —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's right there in your accusation, as unfounded it is. Detainment and/or deportation for acts of terrorism are not the destruction of an ethnic group. 92.5.188.248 (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Saying an entire ethnic group should be "purged" is the definition of advocating for ethnic cleansing, i.e. genocide. Please review WP:NOTHERE if you want to avoid another block (assuming these are your edits). --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
White genocide is a conspiracy theory, nobody is advocating for genocide targeted at whites. That's a Fascist far right neo Nazi Trump supporting white supremacist talking point that only the alt right care about. The same groups who are pro genocide and support terrorism. 92.5.188.248 (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing Antiziganism categories from Neo-Nazis in politics[edit]

Hi Sangdeboeuf, I saw you've been removing antiziganism and/or racism categories from a number of BLPs. In plenty of cases I agree with you. But in a number of cases I'm concerned that you've removed categories that well describe and are in fact central to the BLP. For instance:

  • Ferenc Szaniszló - you removed "Category:Antiziganism in Hungary" here [8], but Szaniszló is (in)famous for his anti-roma and anti-semitic politics [9][10][11], and is considered close to the neo-Nazi far right in Hungary [12]. This is well documented in the article. Szaniszló is on my watch list and that's how noticed a few more problematic removals.
  • Marian Kotleba - you removed "Category:Antiziganism in Slovakia" here [13]. Reliable sources write that Kotleba is a Slovak neo-Nazi, formerly the head the neo-Nazi Togetherness-National Party that's banned in Slovakia [14]. His anti-semitic, anti-muslim, and anti-Roma politics are well known and described in the article [15][16].
  • Milan Mazurek - you removed "Category:Antiziganism in Slovakia" here [17], but Mazurek is a deputy in the far-right People’s Party Our Slovakia [18], founded by Kotleba, who according to sources is a neo-Nazi [19]. Mazurek calls Roma "animals" (among other things) [20][21]. Local media write that Mazurek has praised Hitler in social media posts, and the Slovak Supreme Court removed him from parliament as a result of his statements [22].
  • Ján Slota - you removed "Category:Antiziganism in Slovakia" here [23]. Professor Cas Mudde has a lengthy commentary on Slota in his book "Racist extremism in central and eastern Europe," mostly pages 214-216 (Routledge 2005). He calls Hungarians a "malicious, nasty nation" that "came in" and "expanded"... from central Asia." He said that 70 % of Roma are criminals, many of whom should perhaps be killed. Mudde describes Slota's statements as "openly racist and xenophobic." Apparently the leadership of the youth wing of the party that Slota leads is often staffed by skinheads (neo-Nazis).

For these reasons, for these BLPs at least, I'm restoring these tags. Since many of your tag removals seem justified, I suspect you didn't look closely at these few far-right biographies. Really, individuals like this should be in categories related to racism, xenophobia, and neo-Nazi politics so that researchers or students can use the categories to study these phenomena. -Darouet (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Sangdeboeuf, I have come across this discussion [24] (permanent link here [25]) where you, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, William Allen Simpson, Masem, and Namiba - all editors I respect - decided on this change, implemented here [26]. I agree with you all that these categories are frequently misused and misapplied, and that this is a serious and egregious problem. Some of your recent removals of categories from a number of BLPs address these misapplications. However, many political figures really do lead fascist groups, or infamously describe Roma as "animals," etc. How are researchers using the encyclopedia supposed to navigate well-known fascist or ultra-right nationalist political figures? "Far-right nationalist" is often used as a euphemism for neo-Nazism or fascism in Europe, but I don't think we should be using euphemisms in a polite encyclopedia. Don't you think a larger discussion of this issue is needed? -Darouet (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tom Hull BLP[edit]

Hey man, I saw your name at the BLP project page and thought you'd be the right person to ask. Would Tom Hull (critic) encounter sourcing issues if I nominated it for GA? A lot of it is sourced to interview/self-published accounts by Hull. isento (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not too familiar with the GA process, sorry. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added information[edit]

Greetings! I definitely don't want to make you feel like you should change anything, but wanted to provide you with some additional information that you can use, or not use, as you see fit: [27][28]. Okay, that's it! Now you can do whatever you want.

Good day, stay safe. Benevolent human (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you thought I was unaware of that information, please see my edits to the article as well as this archived RfC. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfD[edit]

When nominating a redirect for deletion, please check if it's an AfC redirect, and also notify the requester of the redirect. Thanks! ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 06:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reversion of edit to Rule of Thumb[edit]

I had done some editing and reorganization of the article and found it reverted with a reference to MOS:LEAD. I did remove a substantial amount of text from the lead, but that text was verbatim copied from the text below, and though it referenced an aspect of the phrase, it by no means was the most significant aspect, and certainly not a deeper discussion within the article lead itself.

In addition, I changed the opening test from the extremely opaque "The English phrase rule of thumb refers to a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation" to "In English, rule of thumb refers to an approximate method for doing something, based on practical experience rather than theory" (which was the secondary definition previously).

I don't want to revert a revert without a discussion; can you offer some thoughts here? I would like to revert back to my version of the article; if you feel that the lead is now insufficient, a better approach would be to add additional text as a summary of the content below, not a direct copy of the content below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauciusa (talkcontribs) 13:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lead section exists to convey the most important points of the article. The folk etymology is the aspect covered in the most published sources; therefore it is highly significant. If you feel that the lead is too wordy or repetitive, a better approach would be re-wording it to be more concise, not removing whole paragraphs outright or adding examples without citing any sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Woke[edit]

Thank you for you feedback. However, wikipedia has to be balanced or neutral and written as an encyclopedia by including a variety of perspectives. The woke page already cites commentators (one could argue some of these are random such as a writer for Vox) and suggests that woke is only criticised by the right to belittle BLM etc, or is inherently a good thing. The tone of the page has been edited and gatekeeped in that direction. I would also say John McWhorter isn't a "random" commentator, but is an academic and writer who has covered the subject. Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MWD115 (talkcontribs) 15:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not what "balanced" or "neutral" mean on Wikipedia. We follow the most reliable sources; we don't invent arbitrary litmus tests for a source's political leanings. McWhorter is a linguist. His political commentary carries no special weight. If there are other opinion commentators cited, they should be removed as well. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Racism in Japan[edit]

The current title was endorsed without a single dissenting comment just few months ago: Talk:Racism_in_Japan#Requested_move_19_March_2021 . If you'd like to change it, please start your own WP:RM, but please consider that pretty much all other articles in Category:Racism by country use the simple Racism in Fooland name. Exceptions can IMHO only lead to whitewashing ("no, my country has no racism, just ethnic/racial issues"). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In that case the lead section doesn't actually describe the topic of the article. In addition to a lead re-write, maybe some of the material under § Demographics and § Japanese ethnic minorities could be merged into a different article, say, Demographics of Japan. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you are right about the fixes needed. It's an artifact of the old name which conflated racism with vaguely defined 'ethnic issues' I think. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nicholas Wade[edit]

Thanks for your edits on Nicholas Wade. However, be warned you are likely to face a heavy-handed and vociferous armada active at Talk:Nicholas Wade. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem; I don't have a horse in this particular race. See my comments at Talk:Nicholas Wade § "See also" link. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theory[edit]

Glad to see your participation there even if we don't end up !voting the same.Face-smile.svg I understand where you're coming from to have the same concerns as mine, if we didn't have COMMONNAME I'd most probably select "claims". Per one of my comments there, it might even be "conspiracy theory" at some point in the future, or "<name> lab leak incident", who knows. Just friendly chat that I didn't think belonged on the article talk page... —PaleoNeonate – 04:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the note. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time[edit]

Time is relative when you are moving quickly; it's the theory of special editing relativity. I apologize. VQuakr (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hear trout is tasty this time of year ;-) --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But an appropriate fish would be three weeks or so old. VQuakr (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reverse racism[edit]

My edit to this page did not introduce any controversial new statements, as you claimed. It was a correction of the definition and presentation of the concept; the previous version of the page blatantly tried to present "reverse racism" as a made-up term used by racist people, rather than one referencing very real phenomena. Yuotort (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, "anti-white racism" was previously a redirect to "reverse racism", making the page's presentation as it has been particularly inexcusable. Yuotort (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You did not cite a source for your supposed "corrections". See Talk:Reverse racism#Recent edits. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: 2019 El Paso shooting[edit]

Apologies, I meant to hit undo, but somehow I ended up rollbacking instead, which is supposed to be reserved for vandalism. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incidentally, I'm mystified how anyone can read This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas as anything other than an expression of white supremacy. In any case, I've added two more RSes; hopefully they prove satisfactory. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WTF dude?[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/starter/google/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Yuotort_reported_by_User:Sangdeboeuf_(Result:_) As I've repeatedly said, I am not adding any contentious material whatsoever, I'm just correcting ignorant and biased wordings. You specifically have acted on this several times now. Stop stalking me. Yuotort (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like, how the actual fuck is "reverse racism" supposed to be a conservative practice? Please show me some examples of conservative agendas perpetuating unfair advantages to black people? Yuotort (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could try reading the cited sources for starters. Cheers! --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mia Khalifa[edit]

Please argue in the talk page why you think the sources are unreliable. You cannot revert a referenced edit without giving valid arguments. --BartocX (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like your addition was reverted again per WP:BLPRESTORE. It's on you to show that the sources are reliable. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Misinformation[edit]

You come across as a leftwing activist who uses Wikipedia as a platform to spread bias and misinformation, believes that ethnic populations in America are tribal who are in competition referring to the white population as 'domaninant" Doesn't belive in reverse racisim on the bases that minority's arnt the "domaninant" group. Plumb7589 (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. Those words, incidentally, are spelled aren't, minorities, and dominant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Woke article needs a "criticsm" section[edit]

Also, btw ur straining at gnats (ie she doesn't say in my paraphrase it's simple as woke or anti woke, either)!--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anne: "Even if you have not been suspended, punished, or found guilty of anything, you cannot function in your profession. If you are a professor, no one wants you as a teacher or mentor (“The graduate students made it obvious to me that I was a nonperson and could not possibly be tolerated”). You cannot publish in professional journals. You cannot quit your job, because no one else will hire you. If you are a journalist, then you might find that you cannot publish at all."

At what article space might you suggest analysis of this type belongs on Wikipedia? If not at "Woke", then where? Thanks in advance.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Culture-warrior opinion pieces don't belong anywhere on Wikipedia, unless referenced by reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Remember those? The topics most directly relevant to Applebaum's essay, however, are already described under Cancel culture, Online shaming, Free speech on college campuses, Academic freedom § United States, and the like. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC) edited 01:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well-your opinion of Applebaum's work is unfortunate the bounce of which, needless to say, giving me a low opinion of your sensitivities..--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See if I care. Have a nice day! --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dude, whatevs but ur gonna make me sprain a joint in my fingers (I mean: O1nce or t2wice is okay but why do you make me keep having to click between the article's talkpage and mine!) --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do you keep posting on my talkpage then? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Advice[edit]

Hello. Need your advice as a specialist. A journalistic investigation was released about the huge amount of real estate in one of the persons. There is no confirmation of this official information. This person claimed that this was not her property. The source in which the journalistic investigation was published is not authoritative, but the information from this journalistic investigation was literally reprinted by several well-known and authoritative publications. Just reprinted it, without analyzing this information and evaluating it. Can we add this information by referring to these authoritative publications? Thanks! 2A00:1FA1:43D5:327A:4D0F:9AB5:FA43:3C44 (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eternity News updates.[edit]

Thanks ShootingStar2000 (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IAFD[edit]

I read your edit summary and just wanted to mention here that in my latest edit I didn't re-add the birthday or other info sourced from IAFD. 156.204.196.58 (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your source doesn't say when they were married, and self-published sources should not be used for material about third parties anyway. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found this source [29] stating Dave Naz filed for divorce from Oriana Small on January 22, 2019. Can it be used? 156.204.196.58 (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apart from the last names being different, court records should not be used as BLP sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stolen Generations[edit]

You undid my edit on the stolen generations. Why?

The satatements were WP:UNDUE and/or WP:FRINGE. Discuss on the talk page please. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know that. Can you explain why other than linking me two wikipedia articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SineofTan (talkcontribs) 01:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you knew they were WP:UNDUE then why did you add them? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean that I already knew that you linked to those articles. What I'm asking is why that is. The view that the SG is a myth, while a minority, has been vocally made by numerous people and has been published in news articles before. This is a minor section, so it is not detracting from the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SineofTan (talkcontribs) 02:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Needless to say, I disagree. Take it to the article talk page please. It would be helpful if, when you start a discussion there, you could directly cite the news articles you mention. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Entreaty[edit]

I'd like to disinvite you from futher editing in any way, shape or form my user talkpage; thank you in advance for your courtesy in this matter.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Irony. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was in a moment of pique (and for what it's worth, I rescind it.)
I know that you are not that enamored of my editing. That said, I sincerely invite you to chime in here with regard to my sincere entreaty I've requested the uninvolved administrator who's banned me indefinitely from American politics' page editings. Sincerely, Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
checkYResponded. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Curious editing on the "Woke" page and its talk. (1) I don't see the RfC I'd opened on the RfC page (which is because it was I who'd opened it?). (2) In it, I'd expressed the opinion that, although I'd found the following-quoted vague usage pertinent: "Former President Donald Trump stated in 2021 that the Biden administration is "destroying" the country 'with woke,' and Republican Missouri Senator Josh Hawley used the term to promote his upcoming book by saying the 'woke mob' was trying to suppress it.[43]" -- for editors to include this yet not its corollary uttered by a former president who happens to be politically liberal is indicative of pov skew. Is there an appropriate bulletin board wherein to raise such concerns?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The RfC expired. [30] In any case, you made that comment in a different section. [31] If you want to be site-banned for violating your AE topic ban, then I recommend WP:NPOVN. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Critical Race Theory, Rufo quote[edit]

Hi there, complete Wiki luddite here but a couple of days ago I happened to view and confirm the uncited Christopher Rufo quote which I now see was removed in this edit: 20:34, 4 November 2021‎ Sangdeboeuf talk contribs‎ 81,334 bytes −276‎ →‎United States: Quote not in source, "misuse" is POV

"Misuse" in the original version does seem like loaded language, but the quote itself - "I am quite intentionally redefining what 'critical race theory' means in the public mind, expanding it as a catchall for the new racial orthodoxy. People won't read Derrick Bell, but when their kid is labeled an 'oppressor' in first grade, that's now CRT" - can be confirmed in various retweets from a Google image search, for example three distinct versions/times:

https://twitter.com/Dialoguealways/status/1415654803141693452 https://twitter.com/frerogogo/status/1415026671003054096 https://twitter.com/deonteleologist/status/1453837451408015360

With citation, it seems quite relevant to the controversy. Regards, Mithrae — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.5.88 (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tweets are self-published and not generally usable as sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Utada Hikaru on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Taneli Tikka on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jack Posobiec on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latinx[edit]

Hi,

You recently undid one of my edits for the Latinx article, declaring that a non-notable polling firm is unsuitable for use in the lead. If this is the case, why is non-notable polling outfit "ThinkNow Research" allowed as a reference in the very same (lead) paragraph? See statement: "Surveys of Hispanic and Latino Americans have found that most prefer other terms such as Hispanic and Latina/Latino to describe themselves, and that only 2 to 3 percent use Latinx." Please clarify or revert. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loltardo (talkcontribs) 01:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read the paragraph again. The references are to Fortune and Pew Research Center, not ThinkNow. The addition of the Bendixen poll does not meaningfully alter the statement either. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the widespread coverage and the fact that the term has always been controversial, I don’t think it should be reverted. It isn’t undue and recent doesn’t really work with the something known to be unpopular. [1][2][3] 2600:1700:1111:5940:297E:F34:CA72:1E71 (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sources

Sangdeboeuf read the paragraph again. The Forbes article explicitly says "ThinkNow launched a nationwide poll with a 508-person sample of Latinx/Latino/Hispanic people that they say is demographically representative of the census." You should actually read the article cited next time before making incorrect statements. In the interest of fairness, I still think my edit should be reverted, or the ThinkNow poll reference should be removed. Loltardo (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what? The paragraph says, "Surveys of Hispanic and Latino Americans have found that most prefer other terms such as Hispanic and Latina/Latino to describe themselves, and that only 2 to 3 percent use Latinx." It doesn't single out any one poll in Wikipedia's voice. Why should we do that with this latest one? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"How to Be an Antiracist" John McWhorter[edit]

I do not understand your stance on John McWhorter and why you believe his criticism of the book should be excluded from the page. You cited that he is not an expert in the field; which field? He has taught classes and lectured on the topic of race at Columbia University and based his critisims on that subject. You called two of the sources in my edit "propaganda;" to me this accusation is both unfounded and unfalsifiable, but I would like to hear what you were trying to say. Sorry for being so horribly blunt. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jim Henson on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Areo Magazine" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Areo Magazine and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 16#Areo Magazine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Azov Battalion[edit]

I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [[32]] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's end this edit war[edit]

I'm the user that inserted the Unbalanced template on the Patriarchy article. I have been reading the NPOV dispute article, and realized that the "Neutrality is disputed" suits better for this situation, so I propose a WP:TRUCE by changing to that template.

I mean no trolling or any bad intentions from my actions, by reading your page's Talk page, I realized that you clearly have the same bias present in this article, for that reason, you are unfit to say that there is no NPOV issue with the article, the neutrality has been disputed two times recently, both times were suppressed by you (https://en.m.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/starter/google/wikipedia/page/Talk:Patriarchy#Political_neutrality_violations)

Wikipedia is not a place for political discussion, articles should be neutral, and enforcing your opinions to prevent me from warning users that the neutrality is disputed just because you agree with the article is bad for everyone.

You are far more experienced in Wikipedia than me, I don't even know how to ask moderators to intervene, for this reason, I ask that if you reject this truce proposal, ask a moderator or the one responsible for a dispute like this to intervene, and PLEASE forward this message to them, so they understand my concerns better. 181.9.128.33 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By reading your comments and edit summaries, I realized that you clearly have a political axe to grind. For that reason, you are unfit to say that there is any NPOV issue with the article. Feel free to stop edit-warring any time. Cheers! --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice job childishly ignoring what I said, it seems that you aren't interested in a honest conversation and to defend your actions.
Talking about outside of Wikipedia, people like you are a big problem to the world, thanks to your kind, Trump did what he did and his supporters can't escape bias, neutrality slowly dies so does objectivity.
If you can't accept that you are clearly biased for your edit history and by suppressing me and the other user who warned about the article's bias, then we have a problem of abuse of power, having so much experience you should do the right thing instead of enforcing your political views and then replying humorously when called out for it.
I didn't even edit the article's content, I only added a warning so others may improve it, but instead of helping you had to say that there was no NPOV issue because that's more convenient to your political views. 181.9.128.33 (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I already explained that cleanup tags are not to be used as a "warning". Nice job childishly ignoring what I said. It seems that you are not interested in improving Wikipedia. May I suggest Conservapedia instead? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you politicize everything, automatically assumed I'm the opposite to you, when I'm atheist on the centre-left spectrum socially.
Again repeating what I said to mock me instead of engaging in a conversation with good faith.
I hope someday you get thrashed by a male who is a real patriarch so badly to the point were you can't use a computer ever again, thus stopping you from abusing your power and enforcing your political views here.
I'm not sorry for insulting you at all, you totally deserve it for calling me a conservative, who are ironically more like you than you think, extremes are always closer to each other than moderate views.
Anyways, have a good day you piece of trash of a person. 181.9.128.33 (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your kind words. You're definitely on some kind of "spectrum", LOL. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unbelievable, now you are mocking me implying I have autism, like it's funny, I knew someone close to me who had this unfortunate disease, f#ck you douchebag, insulting you doesn't change the fact that I'm right and that you are too biased to say it isn't NPOV.
I wish you a bad experience with autism to see if you still make fun of that, you piece of sh#t excuse of a person.
I can keep going with more original insults, but it isn't necessary, as you are THE original insult.
(I used # because the automated filter unfortunately has the exceptions list outdated, so it detected its insults. Please consider updating it to exempt this idiot) 181.13.66.159 (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure why you're upset. After all, I mean no trolling or any bad intentions from my actions. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lee Soon-ok on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Renzo Gracie on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Elizabeth Olsen on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Best Sex Ever[edit]

Notice

The article The Best Sex Ever has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article "The Best Sex Ever" was deleted according to this AfD outcome. The decision went on to make clear the following about the outcome: "The case was not made that a Redirect is within policy or desirable due to how common the phrase is." The creation of this Redirect runs directly against the decision.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Gnome (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"MOS: TITLEABSENTBOLD" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect MOS: TITLEABSENTBOLD and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 19#MOS: TITLEABSENTBOLD until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Louis X of France on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Evangelos Zappas on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dispute Resolution (Reverse Racism)[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Gumbear (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21 Convention (Manosphere)[edit]

Is Jezebel considered a "quality source" for a reference for mentioning "The 21 Convention" in the Manosphere article? Curious. Thank you. Related: Jezebel article Chicago Smooth (talk) Chicago Smooth (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doubtful; see WP:JEZEBEL. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]